ArticleScientific reports2026
Human versus artificial intelligence in oral pathology diagnosis: a comparative study of ChatGPT, Grok, and MANUS.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evolving Landscape for Artificial Intelligence in the Diagnosis and Histopathologic Assessment of Oral and Oropharyngeal Cancer.Head and neck pathology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) integration in diagnostic medicine has advanced accuracy and efficiency, particularly in pathology. This study assessed the diagnostic performance of three large language models (LLMs)-ChatGPT (GPT-4-turbo), Grok (xAI), and MANUS-in interpreting histopathology slides of oral lesions. A comparative diagnostic study was conducted using 100 high-resolution slides representing diverse oral pathologies. Images were sourced from a validated textbook and reviewed by two board-certified oral pathologists who provided consensus diagnoses. Each slide was analysed twice by the three AI models using standardized prompts. Diagnostic accuracy, intra-model consistency, inter-model concordance, and agreement with human experts were evaluated using descriptive statistics, Cohen's kappa, McNemar's test, and chi-square analysis. All AI models demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy. In the second round, Grok achieved the highest accuracy (97%), followed by MANUS (96%) and ChatGPT (94%). ChatGPT showed the highest intra-model consistency (κ = 0.918), while MANUS and Grok displayed substantial agreement (κ = 0.790 and 0.740). Expert pathologists achieved 98% accuracy. Comparisons between AI models and human diagnoses showed moderate to substantial agreement, with MANUS most aligned with experts. Most misclassifications occurred in histologically ambiguous cases, with no significant differences between AI models. Multimodal LLMs demonstrated strong diagnostic capabilities, consistency, and alignment with expert reasoning in oral histopathology interpretation. Grok was the most accurate, ChatGPT the most consistent, and MANUS the most expert-aligned. These findings support AI integration into digital pathology for diagnostic support, education, and quality assurance, with further validation in clinical datasets recommended.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.